Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Atty Galas PFR Marriage Art 34 A E Cases

    Uploaded by

    flordelei hocate
    18 views6 pages

    Original Title

    6. Atty Galas PFR Marriage Art 34 a E Cases (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    18 views6 pages

    Atty Galas PFR Marriage Art 34 A E Cases

    Uploaded by

    flordelei hocate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 6
    a emi Rlaons Tato Hn amy rer = sayy cas ; ‘he fact of absence of eal inpedimant bear We ponies ag EERE GRC oe F Renta rea enc ta ingedinen between ie pares tbe prevent ate te ofthe marge ok GP ‘The parties must execute an affidavit 5. The solemnizing officer must aso ofthe marriage sand that he had stating that they have ve together fora least S years: and, HEcutea sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties ound no legal impediment to ther mariage te partes ft her aMdavtin oder to for tive years, thiemarrige willbe vl 4 inconabtavone tor oi ibe, hve an instant marage,athough the truths that they have nat been cohabiting lock marge tcense, an they wil also be criminal able Years during the age of minty, marriage upon reaching majority age without obtaining mariage Neense Y Witat vs. savaDoG 328 ScRa 122 sin this ase are the eis of Pe to Nal Sbyhs rst mariage to TeodlaBellones. The respondent, Norma Bedayog, Tae of Pepito ater Teoduly's death, : esto Teall — Srp fot maried on Seotember 26, 1974. Peto shot Teodula and she died on April 24, 1985, Pepito maid the fron December 11, 1986 or ony after 20 months ater Teodulfa’s death. The marriage was celebrated WITHOUT the required ge Icerse, In leu oft they only executed an affidavit stating thereof that they had been ving together as husband and wife for east ve Years anc thus exempt rom securing 2 marrage eens as provided fern Article 75. the Fo ‘inn Pepto ced after having a car accent, the petiones fed a ult forthe declaration of nulty of marrage between Pepito and the rrpandent onthe ground of lick ofthe required marrige ens. The respondent contends thatthe petitioners does nt have the legal sanding because they are not among thos allowed bylaw to fle 2 sul for such declaration of nulity ef her marrage to theweceased, rept. =Tolao Cry Ther cour rules in favor of the respondent onthe ground thet indeed the FCs sent as to this kindof statin, apphving Ace 47 (ew ti prowsion) ef the FCby analogy, the petition sould had ben fle before the cea of Pepto and na ter Ns death. Hence, ‘appeal eee ary 9) NS SEpAO A bey Jndotahian, 4 ® Yrs Weg SCOR AS odoaind » wie reernet West [SUE Wineter oF not Pep ans the respondent had been Inng together st husband and wie for atleast fve years pir to the ‘eration oftheir mariaggin which the afcawt executed by ther inti of marnage hcense, would sufice Grrr VA 1D: Pepto and the respondent dic rot ve together 2s husband and wife for at lest five yeas prior to thelr marrage, There wos 2 redo havea marriage cers fist. Therefore the marriage was void ob for lack of marrage eens, ‘Thefve.yar period shouldbe counted fom the day ofthe celebration ofthe marriage and back Se the ilustration below: COUNT THE FIVE- PERIOD YEAR PERIOD HERE DATE OF q NTTO ON r MARRIAGE ea FROMTHE DAY OF g_| |» THe Day oF MARRIAGE MARRIAGE the case at bar Ppito and the respondent got maried on December 11, 1986, Apphng the llustration above, December 11, 1986 Ininas) 5 years = December 11, 181. Teosifs dled on April 28, 1985. Pepto and the respondent got marred 20 months after Tosit's ceath, Bosed on these material dats, the mere execution of affidavit was not sucent Because fom December 13, 1982, tinal the death of Tease on Api 28, 965, Pepto wos NOT LEGALLY capactated to mary the respondent during this period. ‘he five-year period should be a period wherein the couple Is both legally capactated to marry absent only ofa valld marlage. tn tther words, they would have been relly husband and wife i they had been lgaly wed. A period ofcohabtatln characterized by [LQWSWITY, meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years, AND CONTINUITY, meaning unbroken period forthe Derod af fve years. There should be no any legal impediment on ether party to marry. Pepto’ legal impediment was his subsisting Inarage to Teodulla, The marrage was only elsselved upon the latter's death. Therefore thee was a need for a mariage lcense because they were not qualified under ate 76. Pepto’ separation in fact with is wife would nat sufce Because what i realy required i absence of any legal impediment to marry the Fpondertwithr 5 years prior to thelr matiage. (Remember in Separation i oct and even in Legal separation, the marriage ls very Welsubsting) Nees n0 showing that they were exer fom securing mariage ese. The mariage mas therefore vod ab it, $98 €£$ REE —————— CORDER OF ST. THOMAS! aes ay tla alas Synetner of ot the Petitioners Rave the legal capacity to sue We reapondent forthe doa yf mariage en Fein Pepko "wa capacty to sue the respondent forthe declaration of rulity of marriage ie plone Rav he ea caacty osu the respon othe decraton of ly of marge even ater the death of mige, contrast wth voidable mariage canbe attached both clatera la can be atta collaterally and directly. ts also Impresriptbie. Could be diet cther ar eb ARTY av hos NO LEGAL EFFECT whatsorer The sot would gave the propa ae iter ar 148 or art 149 as the case maybe. Regarding en ir chldren, itis governed under Act SO in eelaton 43,44, 51,53, nd 54 of the Fe ‘may be. Regarding the rights f their chen, iti tre CONTRACTING peg gtattad DIRECTLY, The mariage is considered val and eubeting UNTIL ANNULLED could oly by the CONTRACTING PARTIES. It can only be atualled dunng the waar con a sald during the lifetime of BOTH the contracting partis nd not ster the ees nee TETy. While on thee property reine, tis general govemed by wtever propery rep tey hed 3eed etter, Tesh ect ofthe F, absolute community of property or conjugal pares of gars before the atthe FC, The children born betoethe annulment are consered enone [BULEEL When audio decraton of ray of martage necessan? aS eration is ot necessary n order to estab the nly of manage. A vod mariage doesnot requ 2 ud Ee oo oe aa tn orginal rights oF to make the mariage vid. ut though no sentence of avedance is absolutely cesar. elas fo the good order of the society a forthe peace of mind ofall conemed, i expedient thatthe nulity of the mariage shoul be ascertained and declared by the decree of» court of competent reaction Sec ate 40 ofthe FC express provides that there is a Iufre one could remarry, he/she shoul le 2 suit n eout fo ‘eed for such judicial declaration for purposes of remarriage. Therefore the declaration of lity of the previous mars ge | eirship,cnminal eases anéany ther proceeding. Te Supreme Court enumerated the requisites that must concur inorder that the provision on egal atction shal app ‘t_Theman and woman must have been bing together as husbord and wl for at least fe years before the marrage; ‘Tee partes must have no egal impediment to mary each other, ‘+ The fact of absence of legal imaediment between the parties must be present atthe time ofthe mariage (underscoring supplied: ‘The parties must oxecue an affaavt stating that th ey have ved together fora eat five years [and are without legal Impeciment to marty each ater, and ‘he solemnizing officer must execute» sworn statement thst he had ascertained the qual ication ofthe partes and that he had found no legal impediment othe mariage © MANZANO VS. SANCHEZ 42, ae anos eta ay ence sled the marge betwen wo tang parts, Dal Mean (the egal and there compan) ne inn Pay wo were bt bound yor este mares Compan Hemie Bee Ieee eee sto popigrranect the av. she avers ht ste ws he bur elec Daéanane heater eee Shae vender ge ones tat wine at Man arp he ese en th ashaandond we or es wo he bevel ct mane menfonea rogra ees separates eres set a ot oe eiroata hatte “sepa” lowever, Marzano ror evsting maniges. Aso, in thal mariage contract March 32, 0° ened meer \oo% ‘UE Whether the judge demonstrated gross ignorance ofthe law when he solermized the marge Yes, MLD: Arcl 3 ofthe Family Code provides: Nolen sob neces fer the mariage of © man ond waron who hve ned together ot hsbond end ie ‘ao ot fie years and without on egal impedment to mony ech ater, The cantacting re eal ne ‘exaong cts nn adv bore on person utr by nut cdmniser oats The arate offen oe ao tte under oan that he aicertened the quaiiction ofthe conrcting partes ond found no legal irpeinene | tothemarrioge. : non ea ratiestion of manta cohatstona ap the folowing requltes must concur woman must hee ben ing topether ash an wl for tert fe ys ere the mariage overalegimgedinanttomarvechctnen = Sh syns ere meta ur ne ° = 10 fotl_under ye conctot pay a OE eee tact ol absence of legal 3 Te partes mot excete a afuant stat 4 Jeament tomatry eachother) ane Sipe skiing ofeer must eecte a sworn tatemen $ Teun legs inpecient ote marnage * thet he had ascemaines the qualifications ofthe partes and that he of these requirements ate present in the case at bar. ss get Judge himself, David Manzano and Luraminds Pay seg corr was nate hat both were eparted™ lent udge cannot deny knowledge of Manzana's and os nee afd which wer 6 esrson to Ive seperately trom cack oer, ht ‘3 : Me ‘does not dissolve the marriage tie, much less seeton mer Sefton the cas atta nw hi A i nt on ints opie sen chime terol snneeoncu nt tens sauce cut. respondent Judge demonstrated gross ignorance ofthe aw when he solemied » vol and bigamous marriage. NCTON: RULINGS I NIRAL V. BADAYOG AND MANZANO V. SANCHEZ Nil. Badayeg, ‘Manzano. Sancher ‘me fueyear common-law cohabitation period, whichis | The fact of absence of egal impeeiment between the partes nnted back from the date of celebration of mariage, | must be present atthe tne of mariage. oul bea period of legal union hed it not been for the thence ofthe marriage. This S.year period should be the rs immediately before the day of the marnage and i ‘boas be 2 paried of cohabitation characterized by fusuivty — meaning ro thie party war involved at fnvame within che 5 years and continuity — that ts {mtoten” In other words, there must be NO legal Ipoedment to marry each’ other during the S-yeat || ekbtaton prod | | | eC Mele mee | anal, SH Ga OG the Ba “bese to marriages celebra (before | Applies to marriages celebrated under the’ FE whieh took [Pretecmverera. OM coc effect on August 3, 1988, | TRANNY AMEE DECASTRO SDE CASTRO 1 GA.No. 160172 February 13,2008 } evel Mootle. ttre an respondent met rd became sweeter in 95. They led to get marc, thus the applied for a mariage lense ‘te offe ofthe cl Rega of ancy in Sepemter 198 They hs the fst sonal laos omtne noose 1998 at Serer egape in sexthereater When he couple went back te cof the Gl Reger the marys Rant aa sco {pte Tus, oae to push through wth the pln ne of mariage ens, they execs an aida utes Ta neh 18 _ Bina hey had beng together as hatand and wie fr stl ve yrs The coupe gt arndon re sane de thy ‘eel rabe, resting jg of te Metrpoltn Trl Courtt Past iy, omni the cl es, Neverces tere | ‘eremony, petitioner an respondent went back to ther respective homes and didnot live together as husburd and wie | |fBheenbe 185, reponet ne ih os an A THAD ee te sith exponent ng _ Prone supporting her out of her income 253 government dentst and romher private practice e une 1988, repondent fics complaint for support agains petitioner before the Regional Trl Court of Pig Ci (Wal court. n her allege that she is marries to petitioner ar that the latter hae "eneged on his esponsbity/obligation fo her “ash ite ana Rena Tica a his chil RIAL ORDER OF ST. THOMAS MORE —=_ santa Rane — I a het a hasband nde and hath has never seen ot sernowlecged tech reer ornatthemaragewasvie? ay EN a ON omega Jer he Fam Code, the absence anyo eae the ee ieee asl ender etal formal requisites shal ener te marrage vod abn, whereas 3 janer and respondent eld not have amare. erT48® Yokable. Inthe instant eaves cler orsthe eaceree prevented ern ben Bogner a aoe eS Whe Gy coment Fert ihetcane conte Pict onasoengecon mrs unbrlepeocaritcatne ar a carl myopia name eae _pastephecmibent theater 9 mere regu man who have yin the formal requisites of marriage. The lw csperses with the Wed together and exlsely with each otet as husband ard wife for arte The aim of tis provsion eave exposing he ports to

    You might also like